"Great for
novice teachers or anyone needing a refresher but more or less a culmination of
every reading course, workshop or book about teaching reading ever written. The
gist: students need time to read and teachers must be avid and passionate
readers. It could have been said in those two sentence. I would recommend this
book to non-traditional teachers."

My response, posted on amazon.

I included my real name.

H.H. is guilty of adumbrationism,
"denegrating of new ideas by pretending to find them old" (Merton,
1961).The Book Whisperer has introduced
the concept of constrained self-selected reading, the missing factor in
literature teaching. It is also a big part of the answer to intermediate second
and foreign language teaching.H.H. may
have known about this all along, but I didn't, and neither did thousands of
readers of the Book Whisperer who now find teaching literature to be much more
satisfying and exciting.I predict that
research will show that the students appreciate it and profit from it as well.

Merton, R. K. 1961. Singletons and multiples
in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society. 105: 470-486.

Too many people remain misinformed
about the common core. Here is the latest distortion.

Alan Greenblatt just attacked the
Opt-Out movement, saying that it is irresponsible and selfish.There are over 300 comments on the
website.Greeenblatt and most of those
who commented have no idea what is going on.

Mr. Greenblatt has not done his
homework. Opting out of the common core tests is a rational, patriotic,
socially responsible action. We all agree that students should be assessed, but
the common core tests have zero research support, and are already bleeding our
educational budget of every spare dollar, as well as converting teaching into
narrow test-prep. The opposition to the common core testing program, as well as
the common core itself, comes from well-known and respected educators and
academic researchers, as well as parents who see the day-to-day damage caused
by the testing program.
United Opt Out National is an extremely important movement that aims to save
American education. It deserves our respect and full attention.

It is often stated that new standards are necessary so that
children will develop "21st Century Skills." Education Secretary
Duncan behaves, at times, as if he knows what these skills are (but see below).
Most of us have no idea.

The history of science and technology has taught us
that new developments are nearly always a surprise. Secretary Duncan expressed
this idea himself, in an interview with USA Today:

"As we get more and more of these technological
breakthroughs, there are going to be jobs in fields available that don't even
exist today. If these guys [sic] can come out and be those innovators and be
those creators and inventors, they're going to create new opportunities that we
can't even envision or begin to comprehend today" (USA Today, August 9,
2009).

In other words, Secretary Duncan seems to agree with
Yogi Berra: "It's hard to predict, especially about the future."

Preparing for
change: pursue your strengths

The only way to prepare students for the future is to
make sure they are prepared for a wide variety of options and opportunities. We
need to continue to "produce students who graduate with generic skills
that allow them to adapt rapidly to economic changes" (Martin, 2009).

Zhao (2009) arrives at the same conclusion and adds an
important point: School should help students "pursue their
strengths":

" ... it is ... difficult to predict what new
businesses will emerge and what will become obsolete. Thus, what becomes highly
valuable are unique talents, knowledge, and skills, the ability to adapt to
changes, and creativity, all of which calls for a school culture that respects
and cultivates expertise in a diversity of talents and skills and a curriculum
that enables individuals to pursue their strengths" (Zhao, 2009, p. 156).

Don't worry about going to your left

We do not allow students to pursue their strengths
very much, forcing all students to reach fairly demanding levels in what some
people consider to be "basics" before they can specialize. The usual
adviceto work on one's weaker areas is dangerous. Rosenblatt
(2001) advises young basketball players not to worry so much about learning to
go to their left, their weak direction: If you are always working on weak
areas, you can never really get good at anything.

It is undeniable that all citizens need a certain
minimum in some crucial areas, such as reading and math, but not nearly as much
as is often required. Nor is it necessary to hurry development of weaker areas
while delaying involvement in areas of real interest. There is much too much
delayed gratification in education today, resulting often in students leaving
the system before they have a chance to "pursue their strengths," and
the current standards movement promises to make this problem worse.

Broadening options, not making them narrower

Our responsibility is to provide the means for
students to develop their talents and explore their interests so they can reach
their full potential. This means broadening curriculum options, rather than
making them narrower (Ohanian, 1999, p. 4; Zhao, 1999, p. 181-183). Kurt
Vonnegut may be right: " …we
shouldn't be seeking harrowing challenges, but rather tasks we find natural and
interesting, tasks we were apparently born to perform."(Vonnegut, 1997, p. 148).Our job is to help students find
those tasks they love to do, that they can learn to do very very well, and that
contribute to society.

The United States, so far, is doing quite well in
terms of flexibility and ability to adapt to new circumstances:The U.S. economy is ranked as the fifth most
innovative in the world out of 142, according to the 2013 Global Innovation
Index, which is based in part on the availability of education, new patents and
the publication of scientific and technical journal articles (Cornell
University, INSEAD, and WIPO, 2013). The Common Core, however, promises only to
diminish our capacity to innovate, and change and grow with the times.

"American education needs to be more American,
instead of more like education in other countries. The traditional strengths of
American education – respect for individual talents and differences, a broad
curriculum oriented to educating the whole child, and a decentralized system
that embraces diversity – should be further expanded, not abandoned"
(Zhao, 2009, p. 182)

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

McField,
G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education
programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) 2014. The
Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp.
267-299.

McField
and McField analyzed all comparisons done in all meta-analyses of bilingual
education vs. comparison programs (students with similar background in
all-English programs) for tests of English proficiency. Previous meta-analyses
found positive effect sizes for bilingual education, ranging from .18 to .33.
McField and McField reported that when both program quality and research
quality are considered, the effect size in favor of children in bilingual
education programs is larger, d= .41.

This
should settle the argument: bilingual programs, when set up correctly and
evaluated correctly, do not prevent the acquisition of English – they
facilitate it.

(Note:
An effect size of .2 is considered "small," .5 "moderate"
and .8 "large.")

Monday, March 17, 2014

Published in the Oregonian, March 21, 2014, as Common Core and Testing

Brett Bigham suggests that we need more standards and less testing ("Common Core Standards are not insidious: Guest opinion," March 16). The Common Core, however, is requiring an astonishing amount of standardized testing, far more than No Child Left Behind (NCLB) required. The new tests include the usual end of year tests, but in more subjects and in all grade levels, as well as interim tests during the year and possibly pretests in the fall to measure improvement over the academic year, about a 20-fold increase over NCLB.
The tests will be delivered online. Thus, all students must have access to the internet, with up-to-date equipment. This will involve a staggering expense that will increase as systems require updating and replacement.
This effort and expense are planned despite the fact that there is no evidence that increasing testing helps achievement, nor is there evidence that online testing will help.
Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/common_core_standards_are_not.html
this letter:

Friday, March 14, 2014

Not mentioned in the editorial (March 14) is the astonishing amount of testing required by the Common Core and the requirement that testing must be done online.

No Child Left Behind required tests "only" at the end of year in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school. The Common Core aims to test all subjects in all grades, and includes interim tests to be given throughout the school year.

To take the tests, students must be connected to the Internet with up-to-date computers. After the computers are in place, there will be continual upgrades and replacements. The one billion set aside by Gov. Brown is only the beginning.

There is no evidence that massive online testing will benefit students in any way.

One billion only the beginning: Krashen, S. and Ohanian, S. 2011. High Tech Testing on the Way: a 21st Century Boondoggle? http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

"Cuomo steps up for charters," (editorial, March 10) claims that New York charter school students outperform students in nearby traditional schools. But charters can often be very selective in who they admit, and can expell "problem" students. Were these factors included in the New York analysis? Despite their advantages, studies show that in general charter schools do not do as well as public schools.

"Shaking up the classroom," (March 11) notes that the Lindsay District has improved its passing rates on the California Academic Performance (CAP) Index from 2009 to 2013, but a comparison with the chart accompanying the article shows that state and county passing rates have improved at nearly exactly the same rate. This suggests that the improvement is the result of changes in criteria in calculating the CAP index, not the intensive test-preparation nature of schooling at Lindsay.

The Wall Street Journal is the leading source of financial information in the world, but the education staff needs work.

Stephen Krashen

Note: I measured the difference between the Lindsay scores and State/County scores 2009 and 2011 in the figure using a ruler.

Source:

Performance of charter schools: National Charter School Study. Can be downloaded at http://credo.stanford.edu/.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Prof.
Van Damme's conclusion that language acquisition takes place in informal
environments and through active communication is correct, but research supports
a deeper generalization, one that gives hope to language education programs:
Language is acquired when we understand what we hear and read, and happens best
when the messages are of great interest to us.

This
idea is supported by studies showing that language classrooms can be very
effective when they are filled with "comprehensible input," as well
as studies showing that reading for pleasure is a powerful means of increasing
first and second language proficiency.

There is no point in testing writing form, i.e. the use of conventional writing style, grammatical accuracy. Research consistently tells us that writing form comes from reading, not from writing and not from study.

Writing itself is a powerful tool for solving problems and making yourself smarter. This requires mastery of the composing process (e.g. knowing that as you revise you come up with better ideas). This cannot be tested.

Research also tells us that high school grades are a good predictor of college success. Adding a standardized test does not improve the prediction. So there is no point in having the SAT.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

M. Donald Thomas is right: "Common Core supporters (are) providing misinformation" (March 7). In addition to the points he makes, there are other serious problems.

First, the common core standards are untested. There were no pilot studies. Second, the common core requires a huge increase in testing; research has indicated that increasing testing does not mean greater achievement. Also, the new tests will cost a fortune because they must be delivered online. This requires internet access, and up-to-date computers that will be obsolete nearly as soon as they are in use.

The real problem in American education is poverty, not low standards: Our child poverty rate is 23%, second highest in the world among economically advanced countries.

Poverty means, among other things, food deprivation, lack of health care, and little or no access to books. The best teaching will not help when students are hungry, ill, and have little to read. When researchers control for the effects of poverty, American international test scores rank near the top of the world. Instead of protecting students from the effects of poverty, we are wasting billions on what Susan Ohanian has accurately described as “a radical untried curriculum overhaul and … nonstop national testing.”

Cost of tests: Krashen, S. and Ohanian, S. 2011. High Tech Testing on the Way: a 21st Century Boondoggle? http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Published in the Indy Star, March 17, 2014 as "Let's eliminate unnecessary testing"

Tim Swarens writes that "Diane Ravitch’s opposition to accountability isn’t realistic," (March 7) because we need to "identify those who excel and those who lag behind."

Agreed. But we don't need to test every child every year on every subject to find this out. The NAEP test, a zero-stakes standardized test, is given to samples of students every few years, and the results are extrapolated to get an accurate assessment of how districts, states and the country are doing.

If we want to expand the NAEP to measure performance for individual schools, we need to determine, through careful study, how many students need to be tested and how often. The evaluation of individual students is best done by teachers, according to recent research.

When you go to the doctor, they don't take all your blood, just a sample.

I recommend the principle of NUT: No Unneccessary Testing. Test as much as we need to and no more.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/03/07/diane-ravitchs-opposition-to-accountability-isnt-realistic/6181929/

This letter:
http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/03/14/lets-eliminate-unnecessary-testing/6429401/

Friday, March 7, 2014

The Douglas County school superintendent says that students should not just "compare and contrast" but "create and evaluate" and engage in critical thinking ("Educators to state: Let's go above common core," March 6).

Agreed.

Let's start by evaluating whether we should have common core standards and tests at all.

How many policy makers are aware of these facts? (1) US students do very well on international tests when we control for poverty: There is no crisis.(2) 23% of our children live in poverty.(3) Poverty means lack of good food, lack of health care and little or no access to books. All of these have a devastating impact on school performance.

Now let's do some critical thinking and evaluate this proposal: We can protect children from the effects of poverty with improved food programs, more school nurses and investing in libraries for a fraction of what we are about to spend on the common core, especially online testing. This will improve school achievement as well as the quality of life for millions of students.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.denverpost.com/dougco/ci_25273289/educators-lets-go-above-common-core

Cost of the common core: Krashen, S. and Ohanian, S. 2011. High Tech Testing on the Way: a 21st Century Boondoggle? http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Not mentioned in the discussion of changes in the SAT ("Sharpen those pencils: The SAT test is getting harder," March 6) is the question of whether we need SAT-type examinations.

In two different studies, researchers from UC Berkeley, Harvard and Princeton reported that high school grades were a good predictor of college success, and that adding SAT scores did not improve the predictive power of grades alone.

These results suggest that teacher evaluation does a better job of evaluating student potential than standardized testing does: The repeated judgments of professionals who are with students every day appears to be more valid that a test created by distant strangers.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

The campaign to full restore bilingual education in California needs to include the
research. Despite efforts by academics, this research was not brought to the
attention of the voters.

Not mentioned in the Education Week article is
the fact that studies done before and after Proposition 227 passed consistently
showed that students in bilingual programs outperform similar students enrolled
in English-only programs on tests of reading English. Had the public known
this, the outcome of the election might have been different.

Also, as researcher Grace McField noted in the
article, dismantling bilingual education in California did not improve
achievement for English-learners in California.

Both of these findings deserve much more salience in
the bilingual education debate.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/05/23bilingual.h33.html

Sources:

Students
in bilingual programs outperform: ...:

McField,
G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education
programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) 2014. The
Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp.
267-299.